Hacktoberfest 2026：维护者为十月标记出来的 issue，仍然开放、适合新手。 浏览 Hacktoberfest issue

Are Statements fit for purpose?

未关闭
  • 哪里不对？
#712 20 条评论 0 个 reaction 已指派 0 人 在 GitHub 查看

还没有人认领这个 Issue。

评估

难度
5/5
预计耗时
一周以上
新手友好度
25/100
Issue 类型
功能
描述清晰度
需要澄清
活跃度
停滞
领域
documentation

调研方向

首先阅读 Process Document 中链接的 Statement 定义，以及规定其制定、批准和申诉的规则。该 issue 没有指定具体的修改内容或验收标准；这项工作需要就修订后的共识流程达成一致，然后确定受影响的 Process Document 部分。

由索引模型根据 Issue 内容生成。

描述

Proposed to close

Some folks say they're planning/hoping/assuming that documents (e.g., Ethical Web Principles, Vision) which don't come from the WG consensus process might become Statements, and thus represent W3C community consensus.

This makes me uncomfortable. Until now, W3C community consensus has been acheived by allowing any member of the community to participate in a process that is well-defined, with many guiderails to assure that voices are hard, power is not abused, etc. In a WG, I know that I can say my piece, and if I convince my peers, the chair (who is neutral) will instruct the editors to reflect consensus in the document. I know that if I disgree with a decision, there is a well-defined appeal pathway. I know that decisions can't be made without proper notice and transparency. And so forth.

A non-WG forum (for example, the AB or TAG) doesn't have these properties. I am aware and appreciative of efforts to be inclusive, listen to outsiders, consider all input, etc. However, they are not enough; decisions are left in the hands of those who run the body, and any 'consensus' determination they make cannot be challenged. It is not a community decision; it is a decision of that body's members, no matter how hard they strive to be open.

It is true that a Statement needs to be ratified by the AC first. However, this can't be equated to the ratification step in normal Recommendation processing, because it presents an all-or-nothing proposition to members; they had no formal opportunity to participate in the development of the document and negotiate consensus (with the protections discussed above) in the group; only an ex post up-or-down vote in the AC. Yes, of course they can informally participate in the open discussions of the documents being formed up as Statements; however, the fact is that the power structure in place in these non-WG fora fundamentally changes how people participate in them (or decide not to).

Compounding this is the limits on who can appeal the promotion of a Statement -- only an AC rep can. A member of the public or someone who can't convince their AC rep to make waves is out of luck. Thus, the overall community thus gets no role in approving what is supposed to represent it; only the AC (whose dysfunction is well-recognised).

In short, Statements feel like a shortcut -- it's too onerous to get community consensus in a WG, so we'll delegate the consensus process to a smaller group, and then give the community an (unlikely to be excercised) opportunity to reject the result. That doesn't seem like real consensus, especially when we're talking about fundamental issues like values and principles.

Understand -- this is not a complaint about how those groups are running their processes per se; they appear to have put monumental efforts into soliciting feedback, review, and input, and appear to be listenting intently.

主要语言
HTML
星标
263
派生
195
30 天内没有已合并 PR

环境准备

  • 没有 Dockerfile 或 Docker Compose 文件
  • 没有 Pull Request 模板
  • 阅读贡献指南

从这里开始

  1. 先读完整个 Issue，再读项目的贡献指南。
  2. 在 Issue 下留言说明你要接手 —— 这能避免两个人做同样的事。
  3. Fork 仓库，在一个分支上完成修改。
  4. 提交 Pull Request，并在描述里引用这个 Issue 编号。

w3c/process 的其他 Issue

查看 w3c/process 的全部 Issue

相似的 Issue

更多 Documentation Issue

把新 issue 发到你的邮箱

精选适合新手参与的 GitHub issue 摘要。